The Institute for the Development Advancement, and Equality of Puerto Rico (I.D.E.A. of Puerto Rico, Inc.) is a civic non-profit corporation; a "think-tank" not affiliated to local or national political parties, which is integrated by private sector individuals with outstanding professional and academic records, who identify, research, and develop informational positions on Congressional issues pertaining to Puerto Rico.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
First, I would like to express our appreciation to the Committee Chairman, Senator Murkowski, for approving my request and authorizing an additional ten day period from the 14th of July, 1998 to allow for the submission of supplemental written testimony for the record of the hearings held on that date.
As a direct result of the proceedings I would like to submit for the record the following summary of comments and recommendations:
1. Testimony of Mr. Anibal Acevedo Vila (P.D.P. President)
The testimony of Mr. Acevedo Vila and other P.D.P. leaders, as well as the observations made by Mr. Jeffrey Farrow on behalf of the President[i] during his testimony further serve to reinforce our initial recommendation "that all legislative initiatives include in clear terms the exact nature of the current status of Puerto Rico as well as the exact nature of the current status of Puerto Ricans. In essence, the nature of our relationship and the nature of our U.S. citizenship."
Furthermore, assertions included in Mr. Acevedo's statement such as, "it is implausible for me to understand why there is an effort to dispossess Puerto Ricans of our democratic rights obtained in 1952"; "The United States and Puerto Rico entered into a binding compact in 1952", equally serve to illustrate to the Congress the type of misrepresentation that has been made by leaders of the P.D.P. to the people of Puerto Rico since 1952.
A brief historical perspective also becomes essential, so that members of the Congress who have not had the opportunity to experience first-hand in Puerto Rico these misrepresentations, can better grasp their full scope. In essence, in 1952 the U.S. Congress approved Public Law 600, which provided for the enactment of a local constitution (also approved by the Congress as amended) providing Puerto Rico with a limited measure of self-government. As recognized by the U.S. Congress, the proponents of these changes[ii], and the Executive and Judicial branches of the federal government, the fundamental relationship between the body politic of the United States and Puerto Rico remained unaltered as that of an "un-incorporated territory subject to the plenary powers of the Congress under the Territory Clause".
However, in its good will the U.S. Congress inadvertently made two basic errors which have provided the basis for all misrepresentation of the relationship ever since.
(2)
The first, was in authorizing the translation of the term "Commonwealth" into the Spanish language as "Estado Libre Asociado" (literally, "Free Associated State") allowing for the local portrayal of the relationship with the attributes of a true "Free Associated State" , and not the actual and "Commonwealth" juridical relationship that was approved by the Congress.
The second error, was in the language approved to describe the relationship as that "in the nature of a compact" (which in itself denies it is a compact) which has also allowed for further misrepresentation to the point where to this day P.D.P. leaders persist in informing the people of Puerto Rico that a legally binding pact exists by which the U.S. congress does not have the authority to unilaterally exercise its powers[iii].
Of course, according to U.S. constitutional law these affirmations are incorrect, but unless fully clarified by the legislation they will serve to perpetuate the false impression that Puerto Rico acquired its sovereignty in 1952, that the Congress does not have further authority under the "Territory Clause", or that the Congress has permanent legally binding powers that would limit the sovereignty of any prospective Congresses, etc.
2. Testimony of Mr. Jeffrey Farrow (on behalf of the President of the United States):
For the record, I wish to express gratitude to President Clinton, Mr. Farrow and other members of the Executive Branch of government for their unequivocal support for the self-determination of their fellow American citizens in Puerto Rico.
However, although I concur with most of the findings and recommendations in Mr. Farrow's July 15th, 1998 testimony, the following exceptions must be noted:
A. "National Sovereignty/ or Nationhood in Association with the U.S.":
For reasons partly detailed previously, many of the people of Puerto Rico have been deceived to the point of believing that national sovereignty was attained or could be attained by the present territorial status of "Commonwealth".
Although we agree with Mr. Farrow's observations about the confusion existing due to the use of the term "Estado Libre Asociado", such confusion also exists with the term "national sovereignty", and the false local assertions that separate nationhood can exist within the U.S. constitutional system.
(3)
Thus, it is our recommendation that "Free Association" be clearly defined as an option under independence, or "Independence with Free Association to the United States" if it is to be included as a separate option from "full" independence.
B. "Moral vs. Legal Obligations":
The proposed legislation can contemplate the inclusion of a "statement of moral obligation" or , as is the case in HR 856, a "statement of policy" under the option of Commonwealth to assure the people of Puerto Rico that it is the intent of this Congress not to act unilaterally and alter the present territorial relationship, or alter the grant of statutory U.S. citizenship to Puerto Ricans.
However if such a statement were to be included, it would also be the "moral obligation" of the legislation to clarify that "moral" or "policy" statements have no prospective legal bounds or obligations, nor that the Congress has the constitutional authority to commit prospectively the actions of future Congresses. These are precisely some of the other more contentious aspects that relate to the 1952 relationship and as such must be avoided.
C. "Right to Free Travel"
We agree with Mr. Farrow that this subject must be addressed under the options of "Independence" and "Independence with Free Association" . Based upon the hundred year historical relationship we support the reciprocal right to travel freely of citizens of the independent body-politic of Puerto Rico and the United States.
However, we must point out, as we did in our July 14th testimony that independence in either option may result in the massive displacement of a significant portion of the Puerto Rican population to the United States (estimated as over 40% of the present total population). Therefore, if as Mr. Farrow suggests, the right to permanent residency and employment are included as part of the proposed free travel arrangements, it is our recommendation that the Congress previously study and estimate the economic and social impact such migration would produce on the national U.S. economy, and particularly in the states where likely settlement would occur.
D. "Further Referenda or Plebiscites"
We do not concur with Mr. Farrow's suggestion that a set date for further referenda or plebiscites be excluded from the legislation based upon our continued affirmation that this be a process of mutual self-determination which will also lead to the solution of the national problem of colonialism and its ensuing domestic and international implications.
(4)
It will continue to be in the national interest of the United States to resolve these matters, therefore, we continue to recommend that at least a maximum period between plebiscites be stipulated by the Congress and included as part of the legislation.
3. Questions from Senator Kyl and Senator Thomas
We are including for the record, as Exhibits 1 and 2 of this document, the letters sent to Senators Kyl and Thomas addressing questions that we did not have the opportunity to answer during my initial testimony on July 14th.
4. Conclusion and Final Recommendations
During the course of the Senate hearings it has become evidently clear that there exists a desire on the part of many in the Committee to simplify the language and provisions in the legislation proposed by HR 856 and S. 472, raising the question as to how "simple" is "simple"?.
In reply, I wish to re-state some basic elements which become indispensable to any serious legislation leading to permanent and mutual self-determination:
A. An accurate constitutional description of the current territorial status of Puerto Rico and the current nationality and citizenship status of Puerto Ricans.
B. Accurate, constitutional, and internationally acceptable, options and definitions leading to self-determination.
C. A set periodic provision for referenda and plebiscites until the matter is resolved permanently by democratic majority vote.
Expediency cannot substitute accuracy and truth, and it is our firm conviction that if any of these basic tenets is excluded from the legislation it will only result in further confusion, and provide those in our society that thrive in inaccuracy, misinformation, and misrepresentation, the opportunity for the falsehoods that have been so prevalent during the past
46 years of our relationship.
EXHIBIT 1
The Hon. Jon L. Kyl
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 29510
VIA FAX NO. (202) 224-2207
Re: Energy and Natural Resources Committee Hearings July 14, 1998
Dear Senator Kyl:
As you may recall, during the referenced Hearings held last week I was also part of the panel which included our mutual friend, Dr. Miriam Ramirez de Ferrer. Due to the fact that other commitments did not allow you to stay for the remainder of the testimony, I missed the opportunity to address the question you asked Dr. Ramirez on whether or not people in Puerto Rico considered themselves Americans or Puerto Ricans first, based upon the premise that our fellow citizens in the States consider themselves Americans first.
Based upon very extensive travel and living-in experience I can assure you that many of our fellow citizens in states such as Texas, Louisiana, California, Hawaii, and others may take strong exception to this premise. Asked the same question, you may elicit a reply of "Texan", "Californian", etc. Interestingly, from a sociological perspective, in certain parts of the country replies are based upon cultural or ethnical perspective; thus the replies may be "Cajun", "Creole", and specially in the Northeast corridor of the U.S., "Polish", "Irish", "Italian", "Jewish", etc. Only when traveling abroad is there a more pronounced consistency in replying "American", which incidentally happens to be true of most Puerto Ricans.
Senator Kyl, your question (later repeated by Sen. Murkowski) also reminded me of earlier years in our lives, when as children we are confronted with the unfortunate dilemma of being asked which of our parents we love the most. As a child I was taught by my own parents, if ever placed in that predicament, to answer "both". I was taught that as humans we have an immense capacity to equally share love and affection with other human beings, as well as "God and country".
(2)
Therefore, my answer to your question would be "BOTH". One does not deny or contradict the other; and it is my firm belief that it is up to us who strive to enhance the historic fabric of our nation to assure the common denominators and to respect and admire the differences, which after all, have been the principal contributors in making our country great.
Finally, I trust that in the near future I have the opportunity to meet you personally and perhaps explore some of these questions that when answered will hopefully serve to assist in the full integration OF ALL AMERICANS.
Very Truly Yours,
Arturo J. Guzman, Chairman
EXHIBIT 2
The Hon. Craig Thomas
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 29510
VIA FAX NO. (202) 224-1724
Re: Energy and Natural Resources Committee Hearings July 14-15, 1998
Dear Senator Thomas:
During the course of the first day of the referenced Hearings held last week I had the opportunity to testify, so unfortunately I was not present to address the question you asked of our Resident Commissioner, Carlos Romero Barcelo, and others in trying to ascertain the requirement that the U.S. Congress provide a plebiscite process that will lead to the self-determination of your fellow Americans in Puerto Rico.
For your ready reference I include a copy of my oral and written testimonies which include part of the reasons why this proposed process should be one of mutual self-determination. In addition, there are other legal, political, and procedural considerations which I submit for your consideration as follows:
1. Treaty of Paris
The 1898 Treaty of Paris, which was the peace accord between the United States and Spain ending the Spanish-American War, clearly states: (Art.9.) "The civil rights and the political condition of the natural inhabitants of the territories hereby ceded to the United States, will be determined by the Congress".
As you know, from that date forward the political condition of Puerto Rico was established by the Congress as that of an "un-incorporated" territory of the United States subject to the plenary powers of the Congress under the "Territorial Clause". As such, Congress has retained sovereignty over Puerto Rico and under constitutional law it is the only "body-politic" that has the authority to dispose of the territory and to determine the options acceptable to the United States for such disposal.
(2)
2. Local Referenda or Plebiscites
During the course of the July 15th hearings, you made the observation that you could not understand why the governing party, with a majority in Puerto Rico's House and Senate, could not enact a law to enable a local plebiscite whose results could be later referred to the Congress for consideration. The answers are as follows:
A. History will corroborate that we have exercised that option before only to be reminded by the three branches of the federal government that only the U.S. Congress has the authority to determine the options and status of Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans, making any local efforts futile. In essence, any local plebiscite according to the Congress, would have little more validity than a poll. Furthermore, your fellow citizens in Puerto Rico fully aware of this past history are not willing to once again fall prey to a "Catch 22" situation, which I have described in previous testimony before Congress as nothing more than "games in smoke and mirrors designed to keep the natives from becoming restless...".
The same holds true of Congressional and Presidential Commissions and Task Forces, which have produced little more than paperwork and provided no changes, or responded to any local plebiscites or petitions since 1952.
B. The suggestion that the governing party enact a tenable plebiscite process would be based upon a politically flawed premise. If the majority were to define the options, even if copying Congressional findings and definitions, it would be accused of un-democratic practices equivalent to the Republican majority in Congress writing the Democratic Party's platform. As you also know, if the three local parties are invited to submit and include their individual options it would be a repeat of the local 1993 process during which blatantly false representations were made by the Popular Democratic Party to the people of Puerto Rico under the banner of "the best of two worlds".
As was proven in the U.S. House of representatives prior to and during the process leading to the approval of HR 856, and now appears to be repeated in the Senate hearings, there is very little discrepancy in the definitions of the options of independence or statehood. The problem, both local and federal, is presented by the multiple proposed definitions of Commonwealth. Contradictory concepts such as "sovereignty" with a "Constitutionally guaranteed (14th Amendment) U.S. citizenship"; territorial vs. non territorial attributes; the power to enter into foreign treaties and to select which federal laws apply; the concepts of "permanent union to the U.S." and "irrevocable permanent treaties of union" defy the powers of the U.S. Congress and Constitutional law. To further corroborate these conflicts and misrepresentations allow me to refer you to the testimony offered in these latest hearings by Mr. Anibal Acevedo Vila (P.D.P. President) on July 14th and the testimony of Mr. Jeffrey Farrow (on behalf of the President) on July 15th, as well as the report and findings of HR 856.
(3)
Senator Thomas, for these and many other reasons we must jointly come to the conclusion that it is the Congress of the United States, and only the Congress, who has the authority and the constitutional responsibility and obligation to act and implement a serious process of self-determination for 3.5 million Americans in the last colony in the new world.
Finally, I trust that in the near future I have the opportunity to meet you personally and perhaps explore some of these topics that when answered will hopefully assist in the full integration of ALL AMERICANS. Meanwhile, should you have any questions, or require additional information or clarification, let me know and I will be pleased to forward it.
Very Truly Yours,
Arturo J. Guzman, Chairman
enc. July 14, 1998 Oral and Written testimony.
[i] July 15, 1998 Statement of Mr. Jeffrey Farrow : page 5. para. 5 "The option..."; and para 7, "You heard from..."
[ii] July 14, 1998 Statement of P.R. Secretary of Justice, Mr. Jose A. Fuentes Agostini.
[iii] July 14, 1998 Statement of Mr. Anibal Acevedo Vila: (page 2; para. 2, "Congress lacks authority to make a new interpretation of what occurred in 1952".
See the Oral Testimony of Arturo J. Guzman.
See the Written Testimony of Arturo J. Guzman.
See related articles by Arturo J. Guzman.
